NOTE: This model has not been backtested for historical accuracy. We publish it in large part to give an idea of stylistic trends that can be expected (fast/slow, one team dominating the boards and the other shooting a lot of threes, etc).

Box Score Projection

Scoring SAC UTA
Points 124.3 115.1
Total Points   239.3
Points From 2-Pointers 59.4 56.1
Points From 3-Pointers 49.0 38.4
Points From Free Throws 15.9 20.6
Shooting SAC UTA
Field Goals Made 46.0 40.8
Field Goals Attempted 93.1 85.8
Field Goal % 49.5% 47.6%
2 Pointers Made 29.7 28.0
2 Pointers Attempted 52.1 51.4
2 Point Shooting % 57.1% 54.5%
3 Pointers Made 16.3 12.8
3 Pointers Attempted 41.0 34.4
3 Point Shooting % 39.8% 37.2%
Free Throws Made 15.9 20.6
Free Throws Attempted 21.3 24.6
Free Throw % 74.6% 83.7%
Ball Control SAC UTA
Rebounds 48.0 48.4
Rebounds - Defensive 35.1 36.8
Rebounds - Offensive 12.9 11.5
Turnovers 10.4 14.4
Blocked Shots 5.6 4.3
Steals 8.0 5.6
Fouls 18.3 16.2

Playing Style Advantage: Utah

Expected Effect: Less than 0.1 points
Our simulation model uses tempo-free statistics to project a detailed box score for this game. This analysis also indicates which team (if any) is expected to gain a relative advantage based on the specific matchup of paces and playing styles.

NOTE: Our simulation model assumes a neutral court setting.

Tempo-Free Projection

Possession Stats SAC UTA
Total Possessions 103.0
Effective Scoring Chances 105.5 100.1
% of Possessions with SAC UTA
2 Point Attempt 44.3% 44.0%
3 Point Attempt 34.8% 29.4%
Player Fouled 15.8% 17.7%
Turnover 10.1% 14.0%
Opponent Steal 5.4% 7.8%
Odds Per Shot Taken SAC UTA
Shot Blocked 5.1% 6.1%
Offensive Rebound 26.0% 24.7%